[Loose Cannon]

Originally Posted by Class Act Carl Hogan wasn't the horrible wrestler he's made out to be. He was fed a constant barrage of shitty "monster" opponents (kind of like The Undertaker would be in the mid 90s). So, he had terrible matches with King Kong Bundy, Andre the Giant, Ultimate Warrior, Zeus, Akeem.... anybody would have. His matches against the likes of Orndorff, Savage and later Ric Flair show a different side of Hogan... a Hogan who could actually wrestle. (Watch his Japan matches against Muta or 1994 WCW matches against Flair as an example). As for Foley, he was the guy who actually gave Undertaker his first good feud. 'Taker, much like Hogan before him, had picked up a reputation as a shitty wrestler through a series of interminable matches against monster bad guys. If you'd asked anybody in 1992-1995 who the worst in-ring wrestler in the business was, you may be surprised how many would have said Undertaker. Foley brought out a new side of Taker, and set him on the path to where he is today... a big guy who actually has good matches. Foley also MADE Triple H's reputation (I don't care what anyone says, Triple H was NOT effectively getting over in the main event scene until the run with Cactus Jack). Hogan and Foley, both guys who unfairly picked up 'bad wrestler' labels for their entire careers, but who only really deserved them right at the end.

was gonna rant, but you did it for me